The posts referring to Donald Tusk are related to each other. My feeling about how the negotiation will play out is that he will soft soap us to get what he wants, all signed sealed and delivered and then will go on to hard ball us regarding the economic negotiations. Why from Tusk. Because I believe that Tusk bears influence and will show the type of influence by what has gone before.

We have observed a change in tack from the beginning from when it was originally expressed that we cannot be allowed to come away with a better deal than the rest of the EU after having left and this I feel remains the same sentiment.

Tusk has an angry countenance towards the UK for daring to break away from the EU but he tries to conceal it with the words that do not match his countenance.

I was dismayed that he was re elected as President of the European Council, the very body that was born out of the Lisbon Treaty and which was one that made Ireland vote again until a ”YES’ result was achieved, precisely because of what I feel from him and it is significant that he had the full support of the other members except Poland who have constantly supported the UK and who are also critical of Tusk despite the fact that he is one of their own countryman.

It is the undying support of the others for Tusk that signify the danger because between themselves they can orchestrate a difficult exit for the UK simply by the way they choose to vote on each issue, which for all intents and purposes will be classified as ‘democracy in action’ and there needn’t be any logic to it. The rules are that all member States must agree unanimously.

This is information has been put together, revealed from separate searches on particular topics at different times to satisfy certain questions, and the content found supports theories based on general knowledge and then that information in turn will have then given rise to searches to prove other insights and put together like a puzzle. All information is already in the public domain.

The following article from the Daily Express presents a claim from the brother of former President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, who was tragically killed in the air crash in Smolensk in 2010, claiming that Donald Tusk was responsible for Brexit due to his unwillingness to give way on requests for change by David Cameron.

Headline from the Daily Express:

Donald Tusk ‘directly responsible for Brexit’ and made sure ‘UK got NOTHING in new deal’

[Quote] PRESIDENT of the European Council Donald Tusk is facing pressure to “disappear” from European politics after he was blamed for Britain’s sensational decision to leave the European Union.

Leader of Poland’s Law and Justice Party Jaroslaw Kaczynski said the top Polish Brussels bureaucrat played a “dark role” in Britain’s fall out from the crumbling bloc on Friday.
He said: “A particularly dark role was played by Donald Tusk, who conducted negotiations with the British and in fact contributed to them getting nothing.
“Hence, he is directly responsible for Brexit and should simply disappear from European politics. But this concerns the whole of European Commission in its present composition.”
[Unquote].
Donald Tusk ‘directly responsible for Brexit’ and made sure ‘UK got NOTHING in new deal’

Now it is curious that Tusk who is the president of the European Council for a second term, which came into being as a function of the Lisbon Treaty, has so much influence on how Brexit is conducted because according to the words of Rompouy ” The European Council is not answerable to Parliament‘.

It seems that there is a two way interchange between the European Commission headed by Junker and the European Council headed and controlled by Tusk.

Tusk had once been asked if he would like to be President of Poland and Tusk replied that he would like to remain as Prime Minister because it had more power than the Presidency which only has the power of the veto. This reveals the type of man Tusk is because he had pushed for political reform in Poland when he was Prime Minster where even the power of the Veto would be take away under his proposed reforms of the Polish Constitution thus leaving no influence at all for the President. It was quite obvious that there were strong differences between Tusk as Prime Minister of Poland and Lech Kaczyński as President.

On looking at the position of Timmermans in the European Commission to do with immigration, it is clear that he is a very clever and capable man who seems to have his heart in the right place and can speak five languages fluently as well as his birth language. However he is fully commited to the EU Project.

While Immigration and it’s promotion within the EU was a priority, Timmermans was Junker’s right hand man and it can be observed that people enrolled in positions of EU administration have extensive experience in their field.

So when Brexit broke out, as it were, the most important priority was the enrollment of Barnier as Chief Negotiator because of his background experience in industrial negotiations. You can see that Ministers enrolled within the EU structure have continuous practice and experience in their chosen field from University onward. This means that Barnier superseded Timmermans in position of right hand man to Junker, as it has been observed and quoted. This compares greatly to how the opposite is true of the UK where ministers flit around from one position to another unrelated one at the time of a cabinet reshuffle.

So what we are arriving at is that Tusk who had extensive experience in making reforms, or meddling in the constitution of Poland is the man chosen to be president of the European Council which in turn is not answerable to the European Parliament. It looks like we have a cabal within the European power system.

[Quote] In an interview with the Financial Times in January 2010, Tusk was asked if he considered running again as Civic Platform’s candidate for that year’s presidential election. Tusk replied that although the presidential election typically drew the most voters to the polls and remained Poland’s most high-profiled race, the presidency had little political power outside of the veto, and preferred to remain as prime minister. While not formally excluding his candidacy, Tusk declared that “I would very much like to continue to work in the government and Civic Platform, because that seems to me to be the key element in ensuring success in the civilisational race in which we are engaged” [Unquote]

Tusk did not want to be president of Poland, preferring to be Prime Minister for its scope of power yet wanted to take away the only power that the President had, the veto, reducing him to a figurehead only.

Lech Kczynski was the 4th President of Poland until his death in Smolensk on 10th April 2010. At the same time Donald Tusk was Prime Minister from 2007 to 2014, until he became the first President of the European Council.

From Wikipedia:

[Quote]:
After being elected prime minister, relations between Tusk and President Lech Kaczyński were often acrimonious due to different political ideologies and the constitutional role of the presidency. Using presidential veto powers, Kaczyński blocked legislation drafted by the Tusk government, including pension reform, agricultural and urban zoning plans, and restructuring state television.[56]
In his premiership, Tusk has proposed various reforms to the Polish constitution. In 2009, Tusk proposed changes to the power of the presidency, by abolishing the presidential veto. “The president should not have veto power. People make their decision in elections and then state institutions should not be in conflict”, said Tusk.[57] Tusk again reiterated his desire for constitutional reform in February 2010, proposing that the presidential veto be overridden by a simple parliamentary majority rather than through a three-fifths vote. “Presidential veto could not effectively block the will of the majority in parliament, which won elections and formed the government”, stated Tusk.[58] Further constitutional reforms proposed by Tusk include reducing the Sejm from a membership of 460 to 300, “not only because of its savings, but also the excessive number of members’ causes blurring certain plans and projects“.[58] Similarly, Tusk proposed radical changes to the Senate, preferring to abolish the upper house altogether, yet due to constitutional concerns and demands from the junior coalition Polish People’s Party partner, Tusk proposed reducing the Senate from 100 to 49, while including former presidents to sit in the Senate for political experience and expertise in state matters.[58] Parliamentary immunity for all members of the Sejm and Senate would also be stripped, except for in special situations.[58] In addition, Tusk proposed that the prime minister’s role in foreign policy decisions would be greatly expanded.[59] By decreasing the president’s role in governance, executive power would further be concentrated in the prime minister, directly responsible to the cabinet and Sejm, as well as avoiding confusion over Poland’s representation at international or EU summits.[60] The opposition conservative Law and Justice party deeply criticised Tusk’s constitutional reform proposals, opting in opposing legislation for the presidency to garner greater power over the prime minister.[61]In an interview with the Financial Times in January 2010, Tusk was asked if he considered running again as Civic Platform‘s candidate for that year’s presidential election. Tusk replied that although the presidential election typically drew the most voters to the polls and remained Poland’s most high-profiled race, the presidency had little political power outside of the veto, and preferred to remain as prime minister. While not formally excluding his candidacy, Tusk declared that “I would very much like to continue to work in the government and Civic Platform, because that seems to me to be the key element in ensuring success in the civilisational race in which we are engaged”.[62] A day after the interview, Tusk formally announced his intention of staying as prime minister, allowing his party to choose another candidate (and eventual winner), Bronisław Komorowski.[63] [Unquote]

I believe that the proposed pension reforms by Tusk were to be detrimental, the reason that a work colleague of mine who had come to Britain during the 2004 influx told me that living conditions in Poland had dramatically improved for normal working people and that wages, Pensions and child benefit had now progressed to reach levels comparable to the UK, without general inflation as well as house inflation. This was in 2014. He had already sent his family back and also took out a mortgage on a property but he remained working in the UK himself. Polish people were already returning back to Poland a long time before there was any mention of a referendum here in the UK.

Poland, like Britain had kept its own National currency the Zloty and likewise maintains many of its own National policies despite EU directives and even today it is threatened with expulsion from the EU. Poland really is our true ally and whom we pledged to to go to war to protect during WW2. Many of their pilots flew in the Battle of Britain.

The first shall be last

Came across this first when wanting to know more about Timmermans and his immigration policy

Timmermans was Vice President to Jean Claud Junker in the European Commission, an organisation founded in January 1958

https://www.politico.eu/article/frans-timmermans-dying-star-eu-next-big-thing-no-longer/

By delivering on migration, Timmermans eased the pressure on Juncker, who had faced persistent speculation that poor health would lead to his resignation. Then the U.K. voted in June 2016 to quit the EU, sealing Juncker’s fate and perhaps Timmermans’ as well. A leadership change would have signaled chaos in Brussels. The seemingly doddering Luxembourger would not need a designated survivor after all.

As it turns out, Juncker also had not yet given out his most crucial assignment, and it would not go to Timmermans. In the stunned frenzy that followed the British vote to quit the EU, Juncker tapped Barnier, a fellow member of the center-right European People’s Party, as chief Brexit negotiator.

It was a fast decision pushed by Selmayr in part because of fears that the European Council was angling to take the lead in the talks, and it blindsided top commissioners including the Vice President for Budget and Human Resources Kristalina Georgieva.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Selmayr
In 2014, Selmayr became the campaign director for Jean-Claude Juncker during his candidacy for President of the European Commission, and he subsequently became head of the Juncker transition team and head of cabinet to the President of the European Commission when Juncker took office.[3]Media reports suggest Selmayr is a very influential figure in EU politics, with Politico describing him as “the most powerful EU chief of staff ever” in November 2016 and noting that even Juncker jokingly refers to him by the nickname “the monster.”[4] Tomáš Prouza, the Czech state secretary for European affairs said “when I need a decision to be taken on any file, I talk to Martin”.

In October 2017 he was accused in the British media of leaking details about the Brexit negotiations.[5] Selmayr has consistently denied such accusations. “We have an interest in strong negotiators in London”, he said at a public event organised by Politico in Brussels in May 2017.[6] In close teamwork with the Commission’s Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier, he helped ensuring an agreement on “sufficient progress” in the Brexit negotiations in December 2017.

Wikepedia:

[Quote] The European Council, charged with defining the European Union’s (EU) overall political direction and priorities, is the institution of the EU that comprises the heads of state or government of the member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also takes part in its meetings.[1]Established as an informal summit in 1975, the European Council was formalised as an institution in 2009 upon the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Its current President is Donald Tusk. [Unquote]

This video by David Ike explains so much in his own inimitable way:

https://www.davidicke.com/video/449865/david-icke-germany-tyranny-social-media-censorship

It is my opinion that we are observing the unfolding of an agenda that began with the false flag attack on 911. This then gave the permissions for the assault to begin in the Middle East against Afghanistan and Iraq. Then coming up towards the scheduled pull out of these two countries we observed the transition to colour revolutions in the same style as explained in this article regarding the Ukraine. The great stumbling block to a clear run here is Syria which of course has the support of Russia. They have proved to be a hard nut to crack. I believe that the conflict with ISIS will be the vehicle to finally attempt to finish off Syria. Of course the parallel encroachment towards Russia in the same style that they observed happening in the middle East are bound to make them nervous. It would therefore be fair to say that the Russian pre-preemptive move to reclaim the Crimea was one of strategic importance to them.
I had pointed out some years ago that Russia had been steadily building it’s conventional forces (as is China), primarily for defense purposes and I felt that this was a move away from nuclear knowing that if there was a nuclear exchange there would be no winners only tragic survivors. It does seem odd that we have been steadily depleting our own armed forces while at the same time playing second fiddle to America. This has been a consistent policy in both the New Labour administration and the present one.
The EU has to be very cautious about being led by its nose into a war with Russia and if it does break out then it would be reasonable to expect every country to be a recipient of retaliation. It would likely be in their own back yard.
I had always been instinctively anti Communist and it was only in 1986 that I learned that my maternal ancestors in Lithuania had to go to the woods to burn their identity papers and had later to stay ahead of the Russian advance during the second world war. Now my instinct is different an never in a million years did I ever expect it to be so.
America had the firepower to bomb Iraq into the stone age with no concern about the tragic loss of life as well as historical heritage. There were no real plans for the aftermath and it remains a total mess still. We can take a lesson from this attitude and expect no qualms about it happening in our own back yard.
Ukrainians seek shelter in Russia from recruiters in Kiev

Please ignore the comment by the up loader on the actual YouTube video.

The commentary on the video are from true patriots. They reveal that previous Prime Ministers before the Referendum result have been facilitators for the EU and this can be safely said because David Cameron resigned his position the very next day.

As a result of watching two WW2 films which portrayed the menacing inhumanity of the Nazis on Saturday evening, a question came to mind which I then sought to find an answer to, and in the process found information regarding the Role of the European Commission and the European Council as well as the long standing plan for ”Genocide” of the white race in Europe. They were found together as part of the search process but will be separated out.

So here is the question: ” Was the Marshal plan a continuation of the funding of WW1 and WW2 as well as the Bolshevik Revolution by Wall Street?”

Europe Must Accept Diversity Or Face War Timmermans in EU Parliament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW6crLuz2tg

(It is quite ironic that the proof of the plan to homogenise all Nation States into one EU defined mass, taking away their unique historical characteristics is demonstrated by the rejection of a request by the German National Socialist Party itself. The following video was bundled together in an archive which was necessary to find because many YouTube accounts showing the Timmerman’s video above which had been bundled together with blog articles had been deactivated. This made it all the more curious but at the time of its release there were many such blog reports. In one sense it was fortunate because this find hits home the rigidity of this Supranational plan.)

Proposal to “Ensure Continuation of the German People” REJECTED as “Racist and Nazi” in Parliament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTRIZARsGg

(The Shengen agreement was originally signed by only five of the 10 member states in 1985 and Britain under Mrs Thatcher was one of those along with Ireland that chose to opt out. Mrs Thatcher was ultimately deposed due to her strong opposition to segments of EU policy.)

From Wikipedia:

[Quote] Thatcher and her party had supported British membership of the EC in the 1975 national referendum,[226] but she believed that the role of the organisation should be limited to ensuring free trade and effective competition, and feared that the EC’s approac[h was at odds with her views on smaller government and deregulation.[227] Her opposition to further European integration became more pronounced during her premiership and particularly after her third election victory in 1987. During a 1988 speech in Bruges she outlined her opposition to proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making.[228] She said: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.” [Unquote]

(It would be reasonable to believe that it was her stance against further integration into a Federal structure which was to become the European Union which was to become the seed of her demise. This was to come in the form of a challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party from a back bencher a staunch supporter for further integration into a supranational dictatorship by Anthony Meyer who had very little personal support but it set the ball rolling in 1989.)

Again from Wikipedia:
[Quote] Sir Anthony John Charles Meyer, 3rd Baronet (27 October 1920 – 24 December 2004) was a British soldier, diplomat, and Conservative and later Liberal Democrat politician, best known for standing against Margaret Thatcher for the party leadership in 1989. In spite of his staunch right-wing views on economic policy, his passionate support of increased British integration into the European Union led to him becoming increasingly marginalised in Thatcher’s Conservative Party.
After being deselected as a Conservative parliamentary candidate for the 1992 general election, Meyer became policy director of the European Movement, and in 1998 he joined the Pro-Euro Conservative Party. After that disbanded in 2001, he became a member of the Liberal Democrats.[Unquote]

(So it is very clear to see where his sentiments lay.) The Party leadership challenge continued in the form of michael Hestletine in 1990 but it was John Major who finally won that position and took office on 28th November 1990. I remember the time surrounding the General Election in 1992 nd there was much sissatisfaction with the Conservatives under John Major, the ”Grey Man” and it certainly felt ripe for a change and there was an expectation for it to happen and Niel Kinnock leader of the Labour Party had prematurely celebrated by singing the Red Flag. I wanted a change too but not to Labour and my feeling was much the same as it was for the Ted Heath back in the 1970s. For some reason the Conservatives retained power.
Come the General Election of 1997, Tony Blair and New Labour took office and of course, in the spirit of this article, Tony Blair received the Kalergi award for his contribution to immigration. Also for the duration of New Labour, media reports stated that our immigration policy and border controls were ”unfit for purpose”

There was much difficulty in finding information about the award given to Tony Blair because there was no mention of it anywhere in the Mainstream media and the search was done on the basis of general knowledge that Kalergi award had been given.)

The Coudenhmuchove-Kalergi plan – The genocide of the Peoples of Europe

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/

The Pan-Europe
Few people know that one of the main instigators of the process of European integration, was a man who also conceived the genocide of the peoples of Europe. He was a sinister individual whose existence is unknown to the masses of our people, but the political elites consider him as the founder of the European Union. His name is Richard von Coudenhove Kalergi. His father was an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis), and his mother the Japanese Mitsu Aoyama.
Thanks to his close contacts with European aristocrats and politicians, and due to the network of relationships created his nobleman-diplomat father, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was able to work unseen, away from the glare of publicity, and he managed to engage the co-operation of the most influential heads of state for his plan, making them supporters and collaborators for his “project of European integration”………
In 1922 he founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order, based on a federation of nations led by the United States.

The essence of the Kalergi plan
In his book «Praktischer Idealismus», Kalergi explains that the citizens of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the people of the Old Continent, but a new mixed breed, the products of thorough and widespread miscegenation. He states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and other non-White races, to create a multiracial population, with not clear sense of tradition or identity and therefore easily controlled by the ruling elite……..

A prestigious prize is awarded every two years by the Coudenhove-Kalergi Foundation to Europeans who have excelled in promoting this criminal plan. Among those awarded with such a prize are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy. ( And of course not to be missed out, Tony Blair)

(Just to round things off in the context of the original question which was to do with the role of Wall Street funding activities in Europe, here is something that I didn’t expect to find but in a way it should have been expected given what we know about the relationship of America with Europe.

Likewise there is the case of Deutsche Bank funding Julia Middleton’s training in America, to then be unleashed on the UK first with the ideology of Common Purpose which has now gone International. Their motto is ”Leading beyond authority”.)

And what of America?
Joe Biden Admits Breeding Out The White Race Through Immigration Is The End Game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=sYqQQJcNUTE

Perhaps Donald Trump knows a thing or two after all.

I understood the spirit of the original question in a particular light, and the component parts of accumulated information  also seemed right, but after posting, I had overall  misgivings about the content in relationship with ”the good name” of the Marshal Plan, as it is projected to us, and was tempted to withdraw this article. However I know from experience that information can come which seems to tie things together, in the round, sometimes better than expected and it is often a surprise how things work out. Therefore I felt that I must persevere as the question of the Marshal plan hadn’t been answered and all of the content had hung from the original question and so felt that it was not fair.

A different set of questions had to be asked and finally found some content which seems to square the circle, but perhaps you can judge for yourselves and comment if you wish.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/22447-soros-and-cfr-exploit-refugee-crisis-for-new-world-order

Eusace Mullins gives a presentation which is almost like an after dinner speech. He tells it in a light hearted, relaxed anecdotal way as if to entertain his audience. He flits around a little but you will no doubt recognise the areas that he covers, and what he does come up with is insightful and will no doubt be appreciated.
So watch while in a relaxed mood.

Money and the Conspiracy of Evil
Eustace Mullins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deMAuq7zZV0

It is so amazing how an impending threat of nuclear war has been fingered at Donald Trump when the strategy of creeping ever closer to Russia’s border was carried out by Bush and Obama policies.

For many many years Russia has been concentrating on building up its conventional capability for it most likely realises that Nuclear war would be out of the question regarding the devastating after effects on the planet as learned from the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster of 1986 in the Ukraine.

Of course Russia keeps its nuclear arsenal ready as a retaliatory measure if needed just as the US, UK, France and other countries are doing.

It is very easy to understand that US and EU adventurism to foment wars in the Middle East as well as encroaching upon Russia’s borders could be the driving force for Kim Jong Un to develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent but his boastful and gung-ho attitude puts everybody else on edge.

When Donald Trump responded by saying that he had a bigger button and that it works it came across as merely schoolboy bravado and in a way it was slightly humorous but of course we know that if push came to shove the United States could wipe North Korea off the map with ease, and probably South Korea in the process.

It is quite disingenuous for Europeans to complain about the perceived threat of Nuclear war on their doorstep when they have been party to setting up conditions in the first place by moving closer to the Russian border despite agreements not to and Obama was especially active in rushing through the installment of missiles during the the so called lame duck period of transition over to Donald Trump. I had even written a warning that Europe needs to be careful about what it is allowing, a long time before this because it was plain to see by any clear thinking person, and also mentioned that any nuclear confrontation would be on their doorstep rather than America’s.

They are either plain stupid or they are clever in that they are spinning this for two purposes. One would be to smear Trump and blame any outbreak of conflict on him and the secondly to create justification for the EU to have its own autonomous military structure, perhaps even changing the rules and allowing Germany to become once more heavily militarised as part of that structure. They could claim that this is necessary because of being independent from America’s influence but the reality is that there is a shadow influence which permeate all.

It was the Newsweek article which prompted this comment and the RT article was found afterwards.

U.S. ‘WILL NEVER BE THE SAME’ AFTER TRUMP, GERMANY SAYS

http://www.newsweek.com/us-will-never-be-same-after-trump-germany-says-735881

Congress needs an enemy, so Russia is painted as hobgoblin – former Reagan administration official

https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/402860-trump-promise-conflict-korea/

NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html